This dude's been just about banned from every social media site/app. Not good for him at all.
What does everyone else think of this controversial character?
Self loathing does that. But we all know that there are problems with attitudes towards women within Islam.
To give people a platform to express their "opinions" publicly (but only if their Alex approved)?
Well there is an issue in Islam with attitudes towards women.
So infowars which tells us the "real news" that "they" don't you to know and where everyone can express their public opinion on a platform isn't a kind of platform that you could say isn't private?
But Alex Jones has the right to cancel other people?
See number 19.
https://infowarsarmy.com/terms-of-service/
People do misuse the word "misogyny" but that doesn't mean the actual thing doesn't exist.
Link deliberately from the Daily Mail rather than a liberal publication: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11154837/How-king-toxic-masculinity-corrupted-generation.html
It's grand if you're a man, but it's grim if you're a woman. Especially when he is poisoning young lads' minds.
It's on this very thread. You're even coming up with a hypothesis to defend the indefensible? What mess-up would cause the child to become ill? Why "her"? Looks more like a father to me. Nothing justifies mockery.
Private institutions don't make laws, they just enforce their own rules. Should we have the government force them to make rules for their own forums?
Actually a lot of them do it just for the money. Grifters like this dont actually really have strong personal opinions. Its just creating shock jock and outrage porn pieces so they can make money.
Censorship isn't always good or bad. It is what it is:
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies.
The meaning is clear.
Couple of issues at stake here.
e.g. some of them:
Andrew Tate is offensive and seeks to offend, but is he sufficiently dangerous for his videos to be removed from view?
Does the size and scope of the social media giants, effectively an oligarchy, mean that they have a larger social responsibility? e.g. to remove illegal and dangerous content, or on the other hand, to give platform to different points of view.
If he wants to say what he wants he can stand on a street corner with a megaphone or start his own service. nobody is obliged to give him a platform. He is not being censored. if you think he is you don't understand what the word means.
Is he banned from boards.ie ? That will really set him back
Agreed on that
There is an issue that's been pointed out numerous time over how a small numbers of players, facebook, youtube, twitter, are now the medium for communication or news for a lot of people. They maybe private enterprises with their own T&Cs, but as their control over information continues to grow they eventually take on a role more like a public utility. Its a old debate, its a bit like Rupert Murdoch in the pre-internet age, but with more power and control.
It is possible to disagree with almost everything Andrew Tate says (e.g. if he says smoking is bad for your health, I'll agree with that), but still believe he has a right to say it.
Unless he breaking certain laws, or the other usual caveats for free speech, inciting violence etc.
I've no real interest in the guy, and the few short clips Ive seen, he's basically a troll, trying to generate controversy and publicity.
So he sets out to offend, but has anyone outlined exactly why this person should disappeared from the online world? Apart from being offensive. I'm not defending him - would just like to know the specifics. The problem with cheering on the censoring of others opinions is that it makes it much easier censor any opinions.
No really. Little would convince me to bother with watching Turbidy interviewing anyone on the Late Late. Too much noise to signal going on.
You could say that about anything though
Why would you support someone who behaves as he does (mocking the parent of a very ill child) and spreading damaging misogyny that's similar to that of islamic fundamentalists?
Not "right or wrong", but when I personally find it worthwhile. Interesting guest on and I'll watch because the long format leads to more interesting discussion, DMT, ancient aliens, conspiracy theories and that sorta stuff I find both uninteresting and usually bastshít daft BroScience so I won't watch as I don't find it worthwhile.
nah. you're not worth the effort.
you support him because you agree with what he says.
He has not broken any laws
Irrelevant.
And this isn't his first time being banned from social media. and he was banned for content. judging by his content I am not surprised you are supporting him.
Yeah I find it weird , even @wibbs post above say stating when it’s right or wrong to listen to rogen 😂😂
look at the state of rte 😂
It’s not though
I pretty much came in to post exactly the same as this. The guests are what often elevates Rogan. The format and the time afforded to them helps too. A good guest on Rogan has far more time to talk than even on other pod casts. That is a saving grace for his podcast IMO, but? It also means the time spent on the not so good is wasted.
Yeah I've never even heard Rogan talk about cryptocurrency and "bro" stuff, because I'd rather chew my toenails, but I can avoid that, however if there is a guest on his show whom I like, well I'm not going to disregard the interview because of the host.
If he has an interesting guest Rogan is perfectly fine, good even. Bernie Sanders was another good one. The rest of his output is generally of the tabloid Space aliens gave us DMT type of thing and large dollops of BroScience(the "Alpha" thing a perfect example). His grasp of world history, or the lack of it can be hilarious mind you. Then again dumbing down sells as American media has long understood, as does neatly boxing off politics and debate.
I think it's just something people like to say because they feel obliged to, and also to look down on people. The way people on the right will just condemn anything as woke if it makes a "list", rather than actually investigating it.
Pretty much. The KISS/Keep It Simple Stupid principle sells and makes it easier for those who like to pick a side going on. It's a lot easier to shout Woke! or Right Wing! at hand me down opinions than actually examining them and drawing personal conclusions. This Tate muppet a good example. KISS.
Yeah I have listened to great guests on his show, like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Louis Theroux and Leah Remini. A very good interview with Henry Rollins. I think it's just something people like to say because they feel obliged to, and also to look down on people. The way people on the right will just condemn anything as woke if it makes a "list", rather than actually investigating it.
Seems he's just another grifter who rehashed the now unfashionable "Pickup Artist" stuff of ten years ago and tweaked it for the tiktok generation of the same young men on the fringes who lap this kinda thing up. Seems to have made a few quid from it too, though who knows as social media is chock full of the successful where it's all smoke and mirrors with a package holiday to Dubai and hired cars as a backdrop. He went too far and screwed that pooch and he can't apologise for his dick behaviour or he loses the muppet following he had.
you'll just have to live with it.
I don’t think it is , I’m not saying joes an intellectual heavy weight but it’s a weird feeling being aligned with idiots because I occasionally listen to joe
I guess it’s a good example of generalisation
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/2c24cbeac11f913da9e0b21923b8fc98.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/75b34dced3d0cbcff090228687435d54.svg)
